Gyroscopic Investing

Gumby wrote:
A strict PHD might only be for someone who was trying to easily reverse health problems. And even then, I think PHD is just a guide for an easily digestible diet that happens to reverse chronic disease. He was just designing a diet that is easily tolerated by the most people (including our paleolithic ancestors).

Sounds right.

As opposed to saying most people NEED to eat this way, or should eat this way.

Edit: 1. and then there is still the question of how much of the diet's benefits are from what it adds, vs how much is from what it restricts.

2. Also, given that I've expressed skepticism about e.g. avoiding grains, I should mention that avoiding wheat might be a good idea for many/most.  Heard interesting radio discussion between William Davis (MD who wrote Wheat Belly) and Timothy caufield (science researcher who wrote Cure for Everything) the other night.  Davis makes the point that the wheat we eat today has been modified by agribusiness and is very different from what was being eaten in 1960.  One of the interesting points was that wheat interacts with opiate receptors (mentioned before here I think), and seems to stimulate the urge to eat junk.  I did read the perfect health chapter oh grains and most of it was on the evils of wheat.  So it seems almost everyone agrees that avoiding wheat (whatever you do about other grains) is a good idea.

Benko wrote:interesting radio discussion between William Davis (MD who wrote Wheat Belly)

Christ Masterjohn wrote an interesting review of Davis's conclusions:

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/ ... human.html

Masterjohn points out a few flaws in Davis's conclusions, but he agrees with his view on modern wheat.

Benko wrote:

Gumby wrote:
A strict PHD might only be for someone who was trying to easily reverse health problems. And even then, I think PHD is just a guide for an easily digestible diet that happens to reverse chronic disease. He was just designing a diet that is easily tolerated by the most people (including our paleolithic ancestors).

Sounds right.

As opposed to saying most people NEED to eat this way, or should eat this way.

The reason why the book is interesting is that it challenges some early Paleo-diet conclusions. Everyone was so focussed on the negative aspects of carbs in modern cultures that they overlooked the evidence that our Paleo ancestors got a lot of their nutrients from tubers and roots. It's believed that trading roots/tubers may have been among the first forms of trade and commerce.

So, when Jaminet came along and said that you can still be "low carb" but eat lots of safe starches — in the context of a meal — it really got people in the Paleo world talking. All carbs are not created equal. And Jaminet seems to have figured out how one can obtain as many macro/micro nutrients as possible from the possibly starchy diet that our Paleo ancestors may have eaten. I mean, to get an ideal daily portion of potassium from food is no easy task — but Jaminet seems to have figured out how our Paleo ancestors could have met their daily intakes.

The reason Jaminet set out to research safe starches is because he started getting health problems (thyroid/hormone problems, I think) from following a low carb Paleo diet. It seems that the low carb diets can be very beneficial over the short term (1 year or so), but they can cause problems for some people over the long term. Jaminet was one of them, and it inspired him to research healthy/Paleolithic ways to increase carb consumption. His idea of "safe starches" has gotten Paleo-dieters to see that not all carbs are the same and that a healthy portion of carbs can work wonders for the body.

Of course, he fully admits that each person may have their own ideal ratio. But, the important thing is that he realized that our ancestors probably cherished their dug-up tubers and roots for daily nutrition. Most Paleo-dieters have overlooked that fact over the past few years.

In a sense, it seems like he figured out what our bodies were originally (and are still) designed to eat.

Gumby wrote: His own conclusion is...

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:Drink alcoholic beverages – but only when consuming meals low in polyunsaturated fats. Drink up when you eat beef, but be cautious when the entrée is salmon.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/04/how-to-raise-hdl/

Uh-oh, the Norwegians who like their akvavit aren't going to like that.

Interesting comments on Dr Davis and wheat belly. I try to adhere to the wheat belly diet as best I can. I love that recipe for wraps made of egg & flaxseed.

dualstow wrote: Interesting comments on Dr Davis and wheat belly. I try to adhere to the wheat belly diet as best I can. I love that recipe for wraps made of egg & flaxseed.

In all seriousness, we'd all be better off if we don't rely on Dr. Davis too much. While I agree with his general message, his book and blog are full of flaws, unsubstantiated "facts" and sloppy assertions.

See:

http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot. ... belly.html

http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2 ... usted.html

...And those are two negative reviews from people who agree that modern wheat is quite toxic.

That may be (that Davis' book contains both flaws and hyperbole), but before I discovered it, it never occurred to me that triscuits or wheat tortillas could have been the cause of my upset stomach. I don't have celiac disease but I do feel better now that I avoid most wheat products. And, I'm so happy that I can eat breakfast without the word "cholesterol" flashing in my mind's eye and ruining the fun.

It's not the End All Be All, and I should probably read further,like the book that is the subject of this thread, to further refine my diet, but so far so good.

Gumby, you have mentioned Brazil nuts on occasion. Can you, Benko and others start a list of specific foods that you recommend (or point me to that list elsewhere)? Although I am so far unwilling to commit to a particular diet (e.g., Paleo, Vegan, TCM), I do get in unhealthy dietary ruts and would like to make my diet more diverse, in essence diversifying as I do in my investments. Thanks.

I agree that Dr. Davis has done a great service in bringing awareness to the dangers of modern wheat consumption. I'm just saying that I wish he had done a better job of honing his message because it wouldn't take much for someone to discredit a lot if his assertions.

BearBones wrote: Gumby, you have mentioned Brazil nuts on occasion. Can you, Benko and others start a list of specific foods that you recommend (or point me to that list elsewhere)? Although I am so far unwilling to commit to a particular diet (e.g., Paleo, Vegan, TCM), I do get in unhealthy dietary ruts and would like to make my diet more diverse, in essence diversifying as I do in my investments. Thanks.

BareBones, I really don't think I'm qualified to do that. At the moment, I think Paul Jaminet has done the best job I've seen of putting that list together. I do recommend reading his book even if you don't follow his diet.

WAPF guidelines are great for those who can tolerate grains and raw dairy, but that really depends on the person.

Gumby wrote: At the moment, I think Paul Jaminet has done the best job I've seen of putting that list together... WAPF guidelines are great for those who can tolerate grains and raw dairy, but that really depends on the person.

Thanks. I had seen you post about that before but had forgotten the specifics. Will bookmark so I do not continue to ask.  My excuse: I have dementia caused by my "leaky gut." 

Gumby and others dominating the informed end of the discussion,

If grains are out, which I'm becoming more and more convinced you're right about, what are your feelings on fiber, including (if you think it's important) getting more of it from our other food sources?  I've always belived fiber was very good for you.

Further, shouldn't we be questioning how appropriate dairy is in our diet?  It seems to me that with the exception of when we are babies, we don't have much of an evolutionary history of consuming anything similar to cow-milk products.

Before we continue this discussion... I want to point out that for healthy people, you probably shouldn't try to eat a "perfect" diet more than 80% of the time. The 80/20 rule works quite well

For more info on how the 80/20 rule applies to a "perfect" diet, see:

Chris Kresser: Food fascism and the 80/20 rule

Kresser argues that it's not healthy for a healthy person to get too wrapped up in overanalyzing every bite that goes in your mouth. I believe he references a Chinese proverb... It is better to eat the wrong food with the right attitude than the right food with the wrong attitude.

In other words, it's not worth getting stressed about food as the stress will cause you more harm than the "bad" food. So, enjoy your Cap-n-Crunch cereal and your cup cakes once in awhile!

80% of the time eat right. 20% of the time do whatever you want. (As Kresser explains, unfortunately, this rule doesn't apply to people with health problems)

Very good point, and the stress of forcing yourself to keep 100% to the diet may be worse for your body/gut than eating "bad" foods occasionally.

and for healthy people Kesser's comments:

"For healthy people, I suggest they follow a high-fat, nutrient dense diet that removes the most significant food toxins (wheat, sugar/HFCS & industrial seed oils). If they do well with properly prepared grains and raw, fermented or at least organic dairy products, I don’t have a problem with that."

Which makes a lot more sense for most people.

moda0306 wrote:If grains are out, which I'm becoming more and more convinced you're right about, what are your feelings on fiber, including (if you think it's important) getting more of it from our other food sources?  I've always belived fiber was very good for you.

I spent the past 30 years eating a big bowl of cereal every morning, so I used to believe the same thing.

Unfortunately, it appears that the conventional wisdom that fiber, from grain, is good for you appears to be nothing more than a marketing ploy from commercial grain producers — in an attempt to get us to eat cold breakfast cereals and eat more grain.

When we look at traditional cultures from the Paleolithic period (i.e. pre-agriculture) as well as traditional cultures that were documented by Weston Price and other researchers during the 1920s and 30s — we see that grains weren't needed to obtain fiber. They got their fiber from vegetables and tubers. In fact, the human species thrived for about 2.5 million years without fiber from grains.

Excess fiber from grains seems to be a bigger problem that few people fully understand. Conventional wisdom is that you need fiber to keep your colon healthy. But, if you begin to understand why fiber keeps food moving through your gut, you start to see that there is evidence that it is harming your gut in the process. The book, Fiber Menace by Konstantin Monastyrsky, goes into great detail about the problems with fiber in grains. The book's cover is a photo of a cereal bowl full of nails. If you want a completely different perspective on the negative aspects of fiber, read the book... or at least this short review of the book:

http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-up-r ... ber-menace

See also... http://www.gutsense.org (Monastyrsky's website)

Weston A. Price Foundation wrote:Fiber Menace describes major health problems that can develop from eating what's considered a modern healthy diet high in fiber from grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes and even fiber supplements. The author details how high-fiber diets produce large stools which stretch the intestinal tract beyond its normal range--eventually resulting in intestinal damage--and a drastic upset of the natural bacterial flora of the gut. The end results manifest as hernias, hemorrhoidal disease, constipation, malnourishment, irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn's disease. He also provides numerous medical references to show that high-fiber diets do not confer the benefits claimed for them.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-up-r ... ber-menace

Soaking, fermenting or sprouting your grains supposedly can minimize the destructive aspects of fiber, but I'm not enough of an expert to know if that's true or not. From my personal experience, eating traditionally soaked oatmeal was a good way to transition off of modern grains.

In my mind, modern grains are really just glorified birdseed, and it seems grain lobbyists and corporations have funded a wide range of studies to convince us to eat their birdseed.

Of course, the question on everyone's mind is... how do you poop without fiber from grains? Well, your body needs to adapt a bit. I had a little constipation when I stopped eating a lot of grains. But, it was only temporary. I was able to remedy it by eating a few raw carrots and beets before breakfast for a few days and after that it was just a matter of eating a few vegetables each day. Jaminet, also offers a few solutions. Of course, most people would rather just eat lots of grains than adapt to a traditional diet.

Anyway, it takes a little time to adapt, but eventually you do adapt if you eat the right things.

Gumby (and others),

Thanks for all that.

What about my questioning of dairy?

Also, I tried to scour your Saturated Fats thread but I guess I'm lost on what exactly fatty food contributes for us in terms of micronutrients.  It seems like you guys feel like fatty foods are synonymous with nutrients... I've never thought of my ribeye steak, summer sausage, or bacon as very nutritious from a micro-nutrient point of view.

Thanks for the input.

The perfect diet includes: About 1 pound [0.45 kg] of sugary in-ground vegetables (such as beets or carrots), fruits, and berries;

is not necessarily going to have any less fiber than a diet with e.g. some grains in it. 

Are you (of weston price) really suggesting one go out of their way to consume less fiber?

Perhpas if one just eats whatever one considers healthy including lots of fruits and veggies and not going out of one's way to add fiber one is likely to be fine (if one has a healthy gut).

moda0306 wrote:Further, shouldn't we be questioning how appropriate dairy is in our diet?  It seems to me that with the exception of when we are babies, we don't have much of an evolutionary history of consuming anything similar to cow-milk products.

See: http://chriskresser.com/dairy-food-of-t ... of-disease

Benko wrote:Are you (of weston price) really suggesting one go out of their way to consume less fiber?

No.. I'm just suggesting that people not consume grains for the fiber. It's pretty easy to get fiber from other/better sources (i.e. plants/vegetables). You really don't need lots of fiber.

Benko wrote:Perhpas if one just eats whatever one considers healthy including lots of fruits and veggies and not going out of one's way to add fiber one is likely to be fine (if one has a healthy gut).

Exactly. The conventional wisdom to get more fiber from grains is just industry-driven pressure.

moda0306 wrote:Also, I tried to scour your Saturated Fats thread but I guess I'm lost on what exactly fatty food contributes for us in terms of micronutrients.  It seems like you guys feel like fatty foods are synonymous with nutrients... I've never thought of my ribeye steak, summer sausage, or bacon as very nutritious from a micro-nutrient point of view.

Fats are necessary for life. Your brain is mostly composed of fat. And vitamins A, D, E and K are fat soluble vitamins, which means they are stored in the fat and cannot be absorbed by your body without the presence of fat in your food. Grass fed animal fat is the gold standard in terms of nutrition. And lard (from sun-exposed pigs) is actually the second highest concentration of vitamin D from any food. Grass fed animals have higher conecentrations of omega-3s and conjugated leolinic acid (CLA), which is quite good for you. Grass fed butter is full of wonderful nutrients, including vitamin K2, which is important for keeping calcium out of your arteries. I could keep going, but you get the idea. Far helps you absorb vitamins. In fact, you are more likely to absorb the vitamins from vegetables if you add butter to them!

Grain fed fats are less healthy, so eat them less often (or avoid them).

Of course, it's worth mentioning that you will likely raise your cholesterol when you eat this way, but there is some good evidence that cholesterol between 200-260 is correlated with longevity and improved immunity to infections.

Kressler seems to be one of the more sane paleo type people as he is very into individualizing things e.g.:

Within these guidelines, however, there’s a lot of room for individual differences. When people ask me whether dairy products are healthy, I always say “it depends”?. I give the same answer when I’m asked about nightshades, caffeine, alcohol and carbohydrate intake.

The only way to figure out what an optimal diet is for you is to experiment and observe. The best way to do that is to remove the “grey area”? foods you suspect you might have trouble with, like dairy, nightshades, eggs, etc. for a period of time (usually 30 days is sufficient), and add them back in one at a time and observe your reactions. This “30-day challenge”? or elimination diet is what folks like Robb Wolf have recommended for a long time.

Yep. Kresser has the most level-headed view on diet of that ancestral-diet group. Interestingly, Kresser is a fan of Jaminet and recommends to his patients that they read the PHD. However, he tells them to individualize it. And keep in mind he is talking to "patients" who generally aren't healthy people.

moda0306 wrote: If grains are out, which I'm becoming more and more convinced you're right about, what are your feelings on fiber, including (if you think it's important) getting more of it from our other food sources?  I've always belived fiber was very good for you.

After a week, I'm definitely missing the bulk-forming fiber.   But the main point is to avoid the harsh grain/seed fibers that punches holes in or causes other trauma to the gut.  The type of soluble fiber in fruit, pectin, or vegetables, cellulose, could certainly be supplemented with, worst case.  In fact, pectin is remarkable for drawing out toxins from the body when eating just apples on a fast.  And there is a form of pectin that is modified to be absorbable that has an affinity for gobbling up cancer cells.

moda0306 wrote: Further, shouldn't we be questioning how appropriate dairy is in our diet?  It seems to me that with the exception of when we are babies, we don't have much of an evolutionary history of consuming anything similar to cow-milk products.

Yeah, I believe they underplay the dangers of dairy, especially pasteurized dairy which is loaded with infected pus and toxic AGEs.  Dairy is a Neolithic food, not Paleolithic.  Adults really should not be eating dairy of any kind.  Even raw, grass-fed dairy appears to trigger a classic rhinitis allergic response in me.

Gumby wrote: Before we continue this discussion... I want to point out that for healthy people, you probably shouldn't try to eat a "perfect" diet more than 80% of the time. The 80/20 rule works quite well

Too loose.  It should be exactly 85.71428571428571%.  1 day out of 7.  Anything more and you'll start making excuses.

Gumby wrote: When we look at traditional cultures from the Paleolithic period (i.e. pre-agriculture) as well as traditional cultures that were documented by Weston Price and other researchers during the 1920s and 30s — we see that grains weren't needed to obtain fiber. They got their fiber from vegetables and tubers. In fact, the human species thrived for about 2.5 million years without fiber from grains.

Do you know if they ate the skin from the tubers for the fiber?  My gut sure is relishing the idea but a lot of toxins seem to be concentrated in the skins, like potatoes.  Whats the dealio?

Speaking of guts, wasn't it Dr. Price who obeserved that the healthiest cultures had one bowel movement for each meal every day and the consistency was soft and like peanut butter?

Gumby wrote: Excess fiber from grains seems to be a bigger problem that few people fully understand. Conventional wisdom is that you need fiber to keep your colon healthy. But, if you begin to understand why fiber keeps food moving through your gut, you start to see that there is evidence that it is harming your gut in the process. The book, Fiber Menace by Konstantin Monastyrsky, goes into great detail about the problems with fiber in grains. The book's cover is a photo of a cereal bowl full of nails. If you want a completely different perspective on the negative aspects of fiber, read the book... or at least this short review of the book:

I just want to point out that Monastyrsky may be ultimately correct, but he is far worse than Dr. Davis in bombastic guru hyperbole.  Makes my toes curl!